This is the third part of an interview that was conducted way back in June of last year (2012). You can read the first part here and the second part here.

I’ve procrastinated and avoided transcribing and editing out all the superfluous words (like, you know, I mean, ahh, etc.) from the audio recording to make this interview readable. The interview is about this blog and blogging, but trended off topic into some controversial directions. But it gives insight into facets of this blogger’s character and opinions that most people would not be aware of.

For those looking for information on training and prepping for the Ridge Run, there are plenty of informative posts from last year and the year before. Check out the Best of Page.

As the Race date looms closer, I intend to get some timely posts and perhaps some interviews with some of this year’s participants.

Enjoy this thrid part of the interview as it traverses some interesting terrain and I am not talking about running:

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by Remote Viewing. It seems we are getting off topic in regards to the new media and blogging. But I am intrigued. I’m hesitant to ask you to explain more about Remote Viewing, but what the heck. Can you give some more examples that help explain it? Can you remote view anything? Solve or see some of the mysteries of life? So can you remote the future like the winning numbers to the next big lottery? I just have to ask that being a journalist and all. It seems like an obvious question.

Sure, everyone wants the secret to easy riches. Just remember, wealth handed to you without earning it and working for it, tends to rot the soul.

Nevertheless, nearly every one that has learned the skills of remote viewing has explored the obvious possibility of profiting from knowing the future before it occurs. A lot of effort and work has been done by those skilled in remote viewing on trying to leverage the skill into a profitable endeavor. So the possibilities and the limitations in this regard are well known.

In fact, answering your question will help explain exactly what is possible with remote viewing and what is not; especially when the target is a future event. As background, keep in mind that remote viewing is not easy. It is a tedious and time consuming task requiring great skill. A single remote viewing session can take upwards of an hour and involves a team of at least two people. To get consistent and accurate data on a target can require multiple sessions by several teams. Besides these overhead limitations there are a couple of limitations that make the lottery target you pose especially challenging.

First of all, remote viewing is limited to gathering descriptive data only. Remote viewing a label, a name, a date or a number has proven to be extremely difficult. Labeling or naming something requires drawing a conclusion or deduction based upon ones knowledge. These types of deductions during a remote viewing session are discouraged and thrown out. Deductions involve the cognitive reasoning mind or the imagination. Both of which have proven to be very unreliable. In addition, a target such as a lottery number does not have much descriptive data associated with it. It would be much easier to remote view and describe the winner of the next big national lottery. Unfortunately, the person that you would describe in the remote viewing session would in high probability not be you!

Another dilemma arises when remote viewing future targets. You can only remote view events that you cannot change. If you can remote view a future event, it means it has a high certainty of occurring. You cannot remote view things that are not set or still mutable. You can change the way you may react to future events you remote view, but you cannot change the event. If you intend to change a future event based upon what you remote view, then you could not remote view it in the first place because it is not going to take place.

So in answer to your question, there has not been much success in using remote viewing for winning big lotteries.

That does not mean that remote viewing future events cannot be used to successfully speculate and profit. Let me give you a couple examples were people have been extremely successful in profiting from remote viewing future events.

Remote viewing the outcome of a future contest where there is a clear winner and loser and then speculating (betting) on that information has proven to be very easy and very profitable. Think about a sporting event, especially a large national championship like the super bowl. Before the game, you designate a future target as one of the team’s locker rooms as the players return to it after the game. The descriptive information, especially regarding emotions felt and mental state would yield some significant clues as to whether the team won or lost. If the remote viewing session picks up on elation, happiness, joy etc. it is probable that that team is the winner. Conversely, if you remote viewing session is filled with descriptive data such as disappointment, sadness, confusion etc. it is probable that team is the loser. You would then place your bets accordingly.

You can also speculate on other contests such as elections that have a winner and a looser. You can do this easily by creating an account at InTrade.com that allows people to speculate on the prediction market. Or you can invest in a business or company based upon remote viewing its future health, growth and profit.

Editor’s Note and Update July 2013: Right after the 2012 elections, the US government outlawed speculation and investment in the prediction markets especially through the Irish company InTrade.com. So unfortunately this avenue of speculating on future events based on data gathered through remote viewing is no longer available. The timing of this move right after elections is interesting. But this is a case where the InTrade.com odds and the remote viewing data on the election pointed to and yielded enormous profit. The administration insiders (and remote viewers) knew the fix was in but the general population did not.

What about general insight into future events and what life will be like in the future. Can remote viewing give insight into what is in store for us?

You certainly can, but again there are some interesting challenges with targets in the future. First of all, there is no way to verify the accuracy of the data gathered. You will not be able to verify the data or your interpretation of it, until you get to the future. In military jargon, there is no ground truth. Second, the data can be misinterpreted because the circumstances of the future include elements such as technology or scientific understanding that is beyond our comprehension in the present.

Let me give you an example of this. Back in the 1970s and 1980s, there were some organized remote viewing projects that looked forward one and two generations (30 years, 60 years) to see what the earth would be like and what challenges and disasters (both natural and manmade) we would face. In regard to food crops in the future, there appeared to be a contamination or blight that caused the crops to become toxic. At the time, the 1970s-1980s, this data was interpreted to be a fungal or mold like infection such as ergot. But the remote viewing data also indicated the contamination or blight was intentionally manmade. So the conclusion that food problem was a naturally occurring blight just did not fit.

Well now, 30 plus years later, we finally have the scientific knowledge and technology to reinterpret the data and to better understand what the remote viewers saw 30 to 40 years ago. They were trying to describe crops that had been Genetically Modified. At the time (1970’s), Genetic Engineering was not a scientific reality. Now Genetic Engineering is common place and indeed has contaminated (intentionally manmade) our food crops.

Are you really saying GMOs are a man-made disaster?

Yes. When you change an edible plant or crop to produce a toxin (its own insecticide) it is no-longer editable. Yet it is still produced and promoted as an edible food. There are many naturally occurring plants that are toxic and not suitable as food. Now mankind has the ability to turn once editable food plants into toxic poisonous plants.

Is there anyway to stop this?

Remember, if it can be remote viewed, it is certain of happening. And this was remote viewed decades ago. It’s happening. It’s happened. At this point in time, the genie is out of the bottle. The damage is done. Cleaning it up could prove to be very difficult. If you think cleaning up nuclear waste is difficult! Look how hard it is to prevent the spread of noxious weeds and alien species such Knapp weed. The USDA (US Department of Agriculture) has lots of regulations regarding preventing the spread of noxious weeds. Yet ironically the USDA allows and promotes the spread of truly foreign species in the form of GMOs without any comprehension of what the impact will be.

Anything else in the future that pose disaster potential or challenges for mankind?

Remote viewing requires defining a specific target of interest. You can’t just gaze ahead looking for what pops up. Nevertheless, given the 40 years since Remote Viewing was first developed as a military espionage tool, a lot of insight into what is in store for us in the not too distant future has come to light.

Remember, remote viewing is data oriented not label, name, number or date oriented. So the timing the date when a future event will occur is difficult to pin down. You can get some timing information from seasonal descriptions or by relationship to other recurring cyclical events. The most criticism of Remote Viewing and Remote Viewers has stemmed for the inability to pin down when a future event will occur. The most well-known example is that of the concept of a solar disturbance or solar storm that poses the greatest natural threat to the earth. That event was remote viewed decades ago, but it has not happened or has yet to happen. When you think about it, you don’t need Remote Viewing to realize that a disturbance in the solar output would have grave consequences to the earth. If the sun takes a nap we all freeze. If the sun sneezes, we get fried.

What about other things, like the economy, technology, climate change, culture and the future of our country have remote viewers seen?

Again, remote viewing is not just gazing into the future and describing it. You must have a specific and narrow target. With that in mind, there are still a lot of tidbits about our future that have come to light over the last few decades.

In regards to technology, the big thing in the future will be neural augmentation. Think about social networking on steroids. You will be able to directly share your thoughts and emotions with others. You will be able to feel what others are feeling, and know their thoughts.

In regards to climate change, the sun trumps all. After the sun, the next largest contributor to climate change is the earth itself – think geothermal. The contribution due to carbon emissions is next to trivial.

As for our country you don’t need remote viewing to realize that economically and morally our country’s current trend especially the last few years is not healthy. A Remote Viewing project where the target is the first manned mission to Mars reveals that there are no Americans as part of the crew. America may have been first to put a man on the moon, but they are not the first to put a man on Mars. Draw your own conclusions.

OK, I’m ready to leave the topic of Remote Viewing. Before I do, one last question. What is the most surprising and unexpected insight has Remote Viewing yielded?

Hmmm? Big open question here… I could answer that with something flippant like Big Foot (Sasquatch) is an actual creature. But this creature is quite different. It is not trapped like us in this physical world. It is free to come and go. So it leaves little physical evidence and will continue to baffle those searching for it.

On a more serious note, the biggest insight that Remote Viewing yields is that your consciousness is not limited to the physical and does not stem from the physical. Whether you label it, consciousness, spirit or soul your awareness is not bound to your physical form. It existed before your current life and will continue on after death.

This insight differs significantly from the scientific material model of reality. Accepted mainstream science models consciousness as a chemical process arising from mater. Science says mater is causal and consciousness is derived. Science models life as a chemical accident that evolves randomly governed through survival of the fittest. In my experience, some of it gleaned from remote viewing, matter springs from consciousness. Consciousness and life is not bound by matter, but uses it to interact in matter. Contrary to what science theorizes, evolution is conscious and directed.

Advertisements

Share, Print or Email this:

Like this:

LikeLoading...

Related

About Bridger Ridge Run

The Bridger Ridge Run blog is an information portal for all those seeking to learn more about the Bridger Ridge Run event held every second Saturday of August in Bozeman Montana. This blog contains notifications about important registration dates and deadlines, history of the event, training advice and other stories and entertaining tidbits of information about the Bridger Ridge Run.

Use a dowsing timeline to highlight areas of interest when working through future probabilities. . Wagering and stockmarket are done through indirect ARV techniques and are about 65-80% accurate. It’s legal in my country.

“When you change an edible plant or crop to produce a toxin (its own insecticide) it is no-longer editable. Yet it is still produced and promoted as an edible food. There are many naturally occurring plants that are toxic and not suitable as food. Now mankind has the ability to turn once editable food plants into toxic poisonous plants.”

Genetically modified crops, for example, are modified to create herbicide resistance to products such as round up, which is a contact grass killer only with no residual (commonly mistaken as a harmful chemical….not even close to as harmful to what we put on our lawns). Also, according to research, GMO crops do not produce toxins. Sure, any mutation can become a nuisance when used improperly. But, something else to consider: How do non-GMO supporters suggest farmers mass produce (corn for example) to aid poverty in America? GMOs are strictly regulated for safety, increase crop yields, reduce pesticide use, and help feed the world. All continuous scientific evidence is based off randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews and meta analyses; all from the top of the same evidence pyramid that your health care research is based off. On another note, information from internet sources are not always reliable. Some of the most reliable, evidence-based sources are not accessible to the public.

The Bt variants are probably the type of GMOs foreseen decades ago as it is a better fit to the Remote Viewing data.

Perhaps you are right, that initially those developing and promoting GMOs had altruistic goals of increasing crop yields and feeding humanity. But the bullying techniques employed by the biotech industry/government against consumer advocates of GMO labeling, Non-GMO farmers and countries that do not want GMOs, betrays the intentions of the biotech industry and our government.

Presently there is a fascist cabal between the biotech industry and government. President Obama has seeded the government and its regulatory agencies (USDA, FDA) by appointing former officers of and legal counsels of the biotech industry to positions of power. Consider Elena Kagan (Supreme Court) and Michael Taylor (food safety czar FDA) to name two prominent appointees. Given the power of this alliance, the continued spread of GMOs into the environment will most likely continue.

Everyone has their own beliefs, biases, prejudices and opinions. One’s perspective is a culmination of schooling, culture, family, career, news sources consumed and firsthand experience.

No doubt there are many that agree with your take on GMOs as being safe and will deny and tear apart any study that indicates they are harmful. Likewise those that are advocates for labeling of GMOs and greater scrutiny regarding safety will deny and tear apart any study that indicates GMOs are safe. Time will tell. We are the grand experiment. If you think GMOs are good for you, gobble up!